Susan Fahle
Assistant Superintendent for Business Services
Chula Vista Elementary School District
Dear Ms. Fahle:
I am trying to find out why CVESD defended Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz regarding my obstruction of justice lawsuit, when CVESD was not involved in the case.
When a public entity defends its lawyers for obstruction of justice, one begins to wonder just how corrupt that public entity is. It would appear that you, Ms. Fahle, as Assistant Superintendent for Business Services, authorized this action. Your actions do not pass the smell test.
Pursuant to the California Public Records act, I request that I be allowed to view the contract or contracts entered into by Chula Vista Elementary School District and Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz (STUTZ) or Stutz, Gallagher, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz, during the years 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006.
Saturday, June 24, 2006
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Is the San Diego Union-Tribune wrong about Castle Park Elementary?
The San Diego Union Tribune (SDUT) recently published an "editorial" about Castle Park Elementary.
The May 25, 2006 editorial said, "The uproar at Castle Park started in August 2004 and did not end until this month.""
Really? What happened this month? The editorial fails to tell the reader this crucial bit of information.
The statement, "The uproar at Castle Park started in August 2004 and did not end until this month," is a false statement. The writer knew the statement was false if he or she had any real knowledge of Castle Park Elementary. The Union Tribune has long been aware that the uproar at Castle Park Elementary began NOT IN AUGUST 2004, but WELL BEFORE FEBRUARY 2001. It began when one Castle Park teacher committed a crime against a fellow teacher. The teacher who committed the crime later became infamous as one of the "Castle Park Five."
The SDUT has also long been aware of the San Diego Superior Court case that resulted from this crime. Unfortunately, honest journalism is not a high priority at the San Diego Union-Tribune.
The violations of law by Castle Park teachers and ex-teachers, including the President of Chula Vista Educators, have been covered up by the SDUT even as it has published an avalanche of letters, articles and anonymous editorials about the "Castle Park Five."
If it's an editorial, that means that an editor at the newspaper wrote it, right?
Not necessarily. The SDUT offers certain individuals a way out of the requirement that all letters to the editor must be signed in order to be published. I found out about this policy from an individual who was asked by the SDUT to write an editorial.
Sometimes you can tell when this happens because the editorial is poorly written. Other times, you can't tell. The May 25 article seems to be well-written, but it is clear that the writer is intentionally deceiving readers.
How, you may ask, do I know that the uproar at Castle Park Elementary is not over? I know because I am planning to file suit within the next few months regarding subornation of perjury by lawyers for Castle Park Elementary teachers who were being deposed during the above-mentioned Superior Court case.
The May 25, 2006 editorial said, "The uproar at Castle Park started in August 2004 and did not end until this month.""
Really? What happened this month? The editorial fails to tell the reader this crucial bit of information.
The statement, "The uproar at Castle Park started in August 2004 and did not end until this month," is a false statement. The writer knew the statement was false if he or she had any real knowledge of Castle Park Elementary. The Union Tribune has long been aware that the uproar at Castle Park Elementary began NOT IN AUGUST 2004, but WELL BEFORE FEBRUARY 2001. It began when one Castle Park teacher committed a crime against a fellow teacher. The teacher who committed the crime later became infamous as one of the "Castle Park Five."
The SDUT has also long been aware of the San Diego Superior Court case that resulted from this crime. Unfortunately, honest journalism is not a high priority at the San Diego Union-Tribune.
The violations of law by Castle Park teachers and ex-teachers, including the President of Chula Vista Educators, have been covered up by the SDUT even as it has published an avalanche of letters, articles and anonymous editorials about the "Castle Park Five."
If it's an editorial, that means that an editor at the newspaper wrote it, right?
Not necessarily. The SDUT offers certain individuals a way out of the requirement that all letters to the editor must be signed in order to be published. I found out about this policy from an individual who was asked by the SDUT to write an editorial.
Sometimes you can tell when this happens because the editorial is poorly written. Other times, you can't tell. The May 25 article seems to be well-written, but it is clear that the writer is intentionally deceiving readers.
How, you may ask, do I know that the uproar at Castle Park Elementary is not over? I know because I am planning to file suit within the next few months regarding subornation of perjury by lawyers for Castle Park Elementary teachers who were being deposed during the above-mentioned Superior Court case.
Friday, June 09, 2006
This could be the year--or not
Chula Vista Elementary School District deteriorated over the last fifteen years, beginning about the time Libby Gil was brought in from Seattle. But Libby was not the basic problem, she was only the symptom of an underlying decay. The real problem is a board of education without imagination, courage or respect for students, teachers and taxpayers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)